What is the economic and social return on investment for telephone cancer information and support services in Australia? An evaluative social return on investment study protocol
Victoria White,
Claire Louise Hutchinson,
Julie Ratcliffe,
Cathrine Mihalopoulos,
Sanchia Aranda,
Patricia M Livingston,
Alison M Hutchinson,
Lidia Engel,
Christine L Paul,
Liliana Orellana,
Nikki McCaffrey,
Todd Harper,
Katherine Lane,
Jessica Bucholc,
Ann Livingstone,
Danielle Spence,
Daswin De Silva,
Anna Steiner,
Elizabeth Fradgley
Affiliations
Victoria White
2 School of Psychology, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Claire Louise Hutchinson
13 Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Julie Ratcliffe
13 Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Cathrine Mihalopoulos
3 Monash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Sanchia Aranda
8 Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Patricia M Livingston
9 Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Alison M Hutchinson
10 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Lidia Engel
3 Monash University Health Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Christine L Paul
7 Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia
Liliana Orellana
4 Biostatistics Unit, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Nikki McCaffrey
1 Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Todd Harper
16 Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Katherine Lane
14 MediStays, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Jessica Bucholc
1 Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Ann Livingstone
1 Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University Faculty of Health, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Danielle Spence
15 Strategy & Support, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Daswin De Silva
9 Centre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Anna Steiner
12 Consumer Engagement, Cancer Council Victoria, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Elizabeth Fradgley
6 School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
Introduction Over 50% of people affected by cancer report unmet support needs. To address unmet information and psychological needs, non-government organisations such as Cancer Councils (Australia) have developed state-based telephone cancer information and support services. Due to competing demands, evidence of the value of these services is needed to ensure that future investment makes the best use of scarce resources. This research aims to determine the costs and broader economic and social value of a telephone support service, to inform future funding and service provision.Methods and analysis A codesigned, evaluative social return on investment analysis (SROI) will be conducted to estimate and compare the costs and monetised benefits of Cancer Council Victoria’s (CCV) telephone support line, 13 11 20, over 1-year and 3-year benefit periods. Nine studies will empirically estimate the parameters to inform the SROI and calculate the ratio (economic and social value to value invested): step 1 mapping outcomes (in-depth analysis of CCV’s 13 11 20 recorded call data; focus groups and interviews); step 2 providing evidence of outcomes (comparative survey of people affected by cancer who do and do not call CCV’s 13 11 20; general public survey); step 3 valuing the outcomes (financial proxies, value games); step 4 establishing the impact (Delphi); step 5 calculating the net benefit and step 6 service improvement (discrete choice experiment (DCE), ‘what if’ analysis). Qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative studies (natural language processing, cross-sectional studies, Delphi) and economic techniques (willingness-to-pay, financial proxies, value games, DCE) will be applied.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval for each of the studies will be sought independently as the project progresses. So far, ethics approval has been granted for the first two studies. As each study analysis is completed, results will be disseminated through presentation, conferences, publications and reports to the partner organisations.
